Explaining a rainbow makes it MORE beautiful!
- Thread starter Gyakuto
- Start date
In the fourth grade we took a system wide test. I scored well enough to go to a different school in fifth grade for advanced studies. It wasnāt far away so I went.
Mrs Ward was our teacher. She was teaching us about rainbows and told us āblah blah, thatās why there isnāt the color green in rainbows.ā
I raised my hand and said there was. She suspended me, my dad took me out of the school. That May I was watering dadās lawn. The sun hit the spray right and I said, āSee dad, thereās green in a rainbow.ā
He said āson of a Bā and immediately drove to the school. Mrs Ward had been fired. It took me until college to ever trust a teacher again.
Same thing happened in Martial Arts. My first teacher was a complete fraud. It took me several decades to ever trust a Martial Arts instructor again. I still find a lot of them to be iffy.
I see a boatload of rainbows out here. They all have green in them. But they sometimes make me think of other things.
Mrs Ward was our teacher. She was teaching us about rainbows and told us āblah blah, thatās why there isnāt the color green in rainbows.ā
I raised my hand and said there was. She suspended me, my dad took me out of the school. That May I was watering dadās lawn. The sun hit the spray right and I said, āSee dad, thereās green in a rainbow.ā
He said āson of a Bā and immediately drove to the school. Mrs Ward had been fired. It took me until college to ever trust a teacher again.
Same thing happened in Martial Arts. My first teacher was a complete fraud. It took me several decades to ever trust a Martial Arts instructor again. I still find a lot of them to be iffy.
I see a boatload of rainbows out here. They all have green in them. But they sometimes make me think of other things.
OP
OP
I think Mrs Ward should be reinstated and you, young master Buka, should be given extra prep to be completed after school while being rapped over the knuckles with a wooden rule. Why? In the video, it suggests that when the droplets of water are extremely fine - mists really- interference between light waves as well as refraction, can create colours not normally seen in rainbows such as magenta and mauve. Is there green in regular rainbows? Yes, but teacher is always right and I want to see you doing prep with a looming wooden rule.
Watch the video again, 50 times until you pray for the sweet release of deathā¦
Fungus
Black Belt
Great story!
Perhaps Mrs Ward, suffered from this
Deuteranopia: Red-Green Color Blindness
Deuteranopia refers to red-green color blindness. This is the most common type of color vision deficiency, which is usually genetic. Learn more about what causes it, testing, corrective lenses, and more.
www.healthline.com
Can colorblind people see rainbows?
Answer (1 of 8): Iām quite in agreement with Anonymousā description. My particular color deficiency seems to parallel his (not likely a āherā). I didnāt know I was colorblind until I was an adult, and only recently did I stop to recall how I drew rainbows as a child, always using only red, yello...
She SHOULD have explain instead, why she can't see the color green in rainbows. Or why how she skipped physics class, and still made it a teacher.
Fungus
Black Belt
It happens that teachers often speak of things they really dont understand, yet have no problelm of using authorative rhetorics as if they did.
I recall when i was a kid and was doing the pre-training for driver license theory test, there was a question where you approach a crossing, and should estimate if there is enough time for you to break in time from a given speed. I make the correct full precision calculation, and found out that yes it was possible. But the teacher said it was wrong. And then his method of calculation involves an approximation. When I pointed out that his method is a simplification that is wrong, and it explains why we get different answers, he was stumped, as he was apparently not understanding what he was doing or teaching, he was just blindly using a flawed method. Shame.
Since then I assess credibility of what people say, not how they say it. And my own empirical observation is also that people who are the smoothest talkers, are often those most full of crap.
So smoother talkers, raise a warning flag in my brain always. So I am more criticial to what they say as well.
I recall when i was a kid and was doing the pre-training for driver license theory test, there was a question where you approach a crossing, and should estimate if there is enough time for you to break in time from a given speed. I make the correct full precision calculation, and found out that yes it was possible. But the teacher said it was wrong. And then his method of calculation involves an approximation. When I pointed out that his method is a simplification that is wrong, and it explains why we get different answers, he was stumped, as he was apparently not understanding what he was doing or teaching, he was just blindly using a flawed method. Shame.
Since then I assess credibility of what people say, not how they say it. And my own empirical observation is also that people who are the smoothest talkers, are often those most full of crap.
So smoother talkers, raise a warning flag in my brain always. So I am more criticial to what they say as well.
OP
OP
Yes indeed. The most poorly performing University students I used to teach tended to go on to school teacher training!
I bet the teachers loved having you in their class!
If only everyone did that.
ā¦like our leaders and Will.i.amā¦actually the latter is pretty inarticulate
I was watching āAntiques Roadshowā a few weeks ago and someone brought in a WWII Japanese guntÅ (a sheet metal pressed, mass produced sword in this case ). The āexpertā gave such misleading, partial information, misattributed and mispronounced various things which caused me to shout at my poor television when it wasnāt really her fault. Since then Iāve questioned what the other experts say about other objects brought into the showā¦
Fungus
Black Belt
Tragically this is true. Thanks to uncritical population, the smooth talkers are those elected.
The downside of democracy?
Perhaps it is like with AI, which is not ripe to work without human supervision.
Unsupervised AI, learning from its own self-interactions, are prone to going bananas.
Is a suffciently stupid population qualified enough to select its own leaders, or will things similarly accelerate downhill?
Evolution will punish us.
OP
OP
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Incredible, but what are you going to tell you kids?
I'm a Master's in Pedagogy, and I hate the scientification of learning especially in younger years. I won't go into it, but it's robbing wonder of experience in exchange for oftentimes unnecessary or convoluted concepts children simply aren't capable of grasping yet.
This reminds me of the "Boba Fett Effect" - where what was made him such a fascinating character in Star Wars was everything the audience filled in about him. His demystification started in novels, comics, the prequels, but most critically the Disney series. It over explained the character, robbed fans of their fictions, and most importantly changed his character. The series betrayed his established character and archetype.
Tarantino talks about this approach he deliberately made in not explaining what was in Marcellus Wallace's briefcase in Pulp Fiction; no one audience member shared the exact same watching experience, because they "filled in" the unexplained. Theories like "a soul" and "God's image" circulated, all of which were valid and very different.
When I see rainbows they're no less beautiful until someone interrupts that experience by explaining it, despite me knowing about them at a scientific level.
Knowing the universe, in my opinion, isn't the same as appreciating it.
Links for those interested:
Seductive details - Wikipedia
Last edited:
OP
OP
This sounds rather unscientific. When I was about 7 years old , I was amazed by a simple experiment presented at Primary school where a candle on a saucer with a little water had a jar placed over it. As the candle burned, the water rose in the jar and simultaneously my eyes widened. When asked for an explanation from our teacher I erroneously āworked outā the candle was burning āairā creating a void that āsucked upā the water. My teacher gave praise, made the necessary corrections to my answer (oxygen, water pushed up by atmospheric pressure) but this demonstration ignited my curiosity in science and ultimately led to a career teaching neuroscience and anatomy in universities and informing countless people.
Subsequently, I began every open day talk with this quote, āThe mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to to lit!ā -Plutarch.
The ārobbing the wonder of experienceā argument metaphorically pours water on potential roaring fires of discovery in our young people and needs to be shown to be completely wrong and indeed immoral. If it had become humanityās predominant mindset, weād still be using flint tools (if we even had those) and throwing spears rather than developing treatments for disease and suffering, discovering and attempting to correct anthropogenic climate change, unearth why a twist in the flight of ones fist causes it to accelerate can cause more damage, why orientating ones sword blade in hanami cuts better than when itās in hasujiā¦
Do whatever you want within fictionā¦I donāt really careā¦it is merely entertainment.
Your fire has never been lit, Haruhikoā¦
Having an idea of itās vast complexity makes one appreciate it even more.
Wikipedia?Links for those interested:
Seductive details - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I hope you didnāt cite that source in your masters.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
It's been studied, and contributes to what's called cognitive overload by preloading the learner's knowledge outside the scope and sequence of the curriculum for their age.
Not so - it's a deliberate Socratic pedagogical approach to stoke curiosity within the confines of best practice, according to the learning needs of the student. It is an evidence based approach to dialogic teaching.
What we find in rote and knowledge based pedagogies was insufficient in developing a naturally curious learner. Play based pedagogies are equally insufficient.
Wikipedia?
I cited Dewey, Vygotsky, Csikszentmihalyi, Piaget, some classic philosophers via modern academics, and Rosenshine amongst others.
Wikipedia is an amazing source if you cross reference, but alas I didn't use it at the time.
Last edited:
OP
OP
My friend, John, completed his PhD with Stephen Hawking and his perspicuity is katana sharp.
I suggested to him that I felt I had a really good understanding of Relativity thanks to the many popular science books Iād read on the subject, despite not having the mathematical abilities to follow all the mathematics. Was that indeed possible? He thought for a moment and told me this taleā¦
During his PhD years, he and his friend were walking past the tearoom in his department and overheard Hawking, Roger Penrose and two other noted physicists debating if it was possible to āparkā a car in a garage if the car is longer than the garage (the basis of their argument being the Lorentz Transformation). The arguments went too and fro and they both listened intently to the pros and cons of each point made by these eminent men, but on it went, as it was inconclusive. Johnās pal walked off, grabbed a ream of printer paper off the mainframe computer and began to ādo the mathsā for the problem they were arguing about. The scribbling went on and on until finally, after many sheets he found the answer! He took it to Hawking, Penrose et al., they worked through the glyphs, eventually lean back and exclaimed āOhhhh yes!ā
Once the maths was done, once it was worked out methodically with a logical progression of ideas, John could, in words, give me, a person without the ability to understand the maths, the answer and explain it!
Einstein did the really hard work to explain Relativity so others could translate it, into words, so I could understand it and marvel at the universe in utter awe.
Everything should be explained.
I suggested to him that I felt I had a really good understanding of Relativity thanks to the many popular science books Iād read on the subject, despite not having the mathematical abilities to follow all the mathematics. Was that indeed possible? He thought for a moment and told me this taleā¦
During his PhD years, he and his friend were walking past the tearoom in his department and overheard Hawking, Roger Penrose and two other noted physicists debating if it was possible to āparkā a car in a garage if the car is longer than the garage (the basis of their argument being the Lorentz Transformation). The arguments went too and fro and they both listened intently to the pros and cons of each point made by these eminent men, but on it went, as it was inconclusive. Johnās pal walked off, grabbed a ream of printer paper off the mainframe computer and began to ādo the mathsā for the problem they were arguing about. The scribbling went on and on until finally, after many sheets he found the answer! He took it to Hawking, Penrose et al., they worked through the glyphs, eventually lean back and exclaimed āOhhhh yes!ā
Once the maths was done, once it was worked out methodically with a logical progression of ideas, John could, in words, give me, a person without the ability to understand the maths, the answer and explain it!
Einstein did the really hard work to explain Relativity so others could translate it, into words, so I could understand it and marvel at the universe in utter awe.
Everything should be explained.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Thatās reassuring.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Alright, I'm a bit rusty here but here we go...
Your anecdotes misinterpret the balance between explanation and wonder. As I initially argued, overwhelming learners - particularly children - with abstract concepts disrupts their developmental engagement and risks replacing deep wonder with surface-level understanding. Schinkelās (2017) framework on active and deep wonder supports this distinction: while explanations may spark curiosity (active wonder), they can disrupt the contemplative appreciation (deep wonder) that fosters awe and intrinsic engagement with the world, leading to innovations that we take for granted today.
This idea aligns with broader pedagogical theories. Dewey (1900) emphasised experiential learning and cautioned against rigidly structured teaching that stifles a childās natural curiosity. Similarly, Vygotskyās (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) highlights the importance of meeting learners where they are, scaffolding their knowledge without overwhelming them. Preloading children with concepts they arenāt developmentally ready for undermines these principles, robbing them of the chance to engage meaningfully. To engage in contemplative wonder.
Ironically, your PhD anecdote illustrates this perfectly. Simplified explanations were only possible because of rigorous foundational work. This reflects Piagetās (1950) theory of cognitive development, which warns against imposing abstract reasoning before learners are ready. Children in earlier developmental stages need time to explore the world tangibly and intuitively before moving toward abstraction. Premature scientification interrupts this process.
Despite my personal reservations about her other works, Montessoriās (1949) philosophy reinforces the importance of allowing children to dwell in wonder and mystery. Over-explaining phenomena, like rainbows, risks reducing learning to a utilitarian exercise, disregarding the emotional and aesthetic dimensions of understanding. Similarly, Gardnerās (1983) theory of multiple intelligences, which I also have reservations about, reminds us that focusing solely on logical-mathematical explanations neglects other modes of knowing, such as emotional and naturalistic intelligences (for clarification I disagree with the multiple intelligences theory, but agree with the humanistic approach).
Finally, your rainbow example mirrors the tension between knowledge and wonder. Scientific explanations interrupt the contemplative experience, relegating wonder to a secondary function. True pedagogy must strike a balance, fostering curiosity while leaving room for learners to marvel at the world in their own way. This requires a deliberate, evidence-based approach - not preloading abstract knowledge, but scaffolding understanding so that learners can construct meaning at their own pace.
In short, effective education honours both the learnerās developmental stage and their capacity for wonder. By overexplaining, we risk turning rainbows into formulas, losing not just the beauty of mystery but the learnerās connection to it.
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Itās the role of the teacher to pitch the information at the level of the the audience. If they overwhelm, they are not doing their job correctly. Over the years, as the ability to understand more complex ideas increases and indeed they stay in education, the audience is presented with refinements to the original idea.
But youāve suggested you do not want any explanation (of rainbowās origin) as it spoils your sense of wonder. Now youāve shifted the debate to child education.
1949?
Iād agree with her, but then weād both be wrong.
Woo woo. This is why people believe in the healing power of crystals and homeopathy.
So you think I look at a rainbow and the I immediately think of the optics that are going on? I look at the pretty colours, the gorgeous arc etc, just like you. Maybe, later on, I wonder and marvel at the complexity of itās production.
When I read āKublai Khanā I revel in the imagery it conjure in my mindās eye, the river Alph, a sunless sea, and then I might think about itās structure and form as I learned at school and marvel in awe at how Coleridge composed it.
The two are not mutually exclusive and Iād suggest, enhanced by deep understanding.
Evidence-based? That sounds like the process of science.
This is the role of the process of education. Having the knowledge of a rainbowās production is not abstract (āexisting in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.ā), it is real.
Once again, this debate is not about the discipline of education. You have steered the narrative in a direction that is advantageous to your personal field of knowledge.
I said understanding something deeply does not detract from itās inherent beauty but in fact enhances it.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Youāve reframed my argument into a strawman. I never claimed that explanation itself is the problem but rather that the timing and method of explanation are critical. Without developmental alignment, even the most well-intentioned explanations risk overwhelming learners and reducing wonder to surface-level engagement.
Yes, my sense of wonder. My opinion. My experience. I haven't shifted the topic at all. To quote you, in your original post:
"Incredible, but what are you going to tell you kids?"
1949?
Yes.
Suggesting that acknowledging multiple dimensions of intelligence leads to pseudoscience is a non sequitur; recognising emotional and naturalistic engagement in learning does not preclude scientific rigour. As I said, the theory of multiple intelligences is not one I agree with at all, but the pedagogical sentiment of approach that underpins the theory is sound.
Adults may reflect on both beauty and complexity, but this doesnāt apply universally to children. My argument is specifically about how premature explanations can interrupt and even stunt a childās emotional engagement and natural curiosity, which is not the same as an adultās layered understanding. This leads to confusion and potentially cognitive overload depending on the child's learning profile.
This is context-dependent. For children, over-explaining risks disrupting their natural ability to marvel. Research consistently shows that early explanations, if developmentally inappropriate, can prematurely narrow curiosity rather than expand it. The balance lies in nurturing wonder first, then guiding understanding when learners are ready. It's referred to as scaffolding.
I'm unsure what you're getting at here. Yes, it is.
Youāve mischaracterised my argument. Iām not suggesting that knowledge of rainbows is abstract or shouldnāt be taught, but that the timing of this knowledge must align with the learnerās developmental readiness. Scaffolding ensures that learners can integrate such knowledge meaningfully rather than superficially.
This isnāt about steering the debate but addressing how explanations are framed within pedagogy. You claim understanding enhances beauty, but this overlooks evidence that, for younger learners, over-explaining can reduce their emotional and aesthetic engagement. My focus on education supports the original argument: timing explanations to developmental readiness preserves both beauty and curiosity.
Explaining the rainbow, as you put it, doesn't always make it more beautiful.
OP
OP
We have reached an impasse.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
OP
OP
Yes me too. Itās nice to engage in intellectual jousting with someone without it crumbling into something more ugly as often happens on here!
Sleep well and dream of rainbowsā¦.
